One 77-year-old’s search for the truth: 9/11, election fraud, illegal wars, Wall Street criminality, a stolen nuke, the neocon wars, control of the U.S. government by global corporations, the unjustified assault on Social Security, media complicity, and the "Great Recession" about to become the second Great Depression. "The most important truths are hidden from us by the powerful few who strive to steal the American dream by keeping We the People in the dark."

Russia Calls the War Party's Bluff

Cold War 2.0 has reached unprecedented hysterical levels. And yet a
hot war is not about to break out -- before or after the November 8 US
presidential election.

From the Clinton (cash) machine -- supported by a neocon/neoliberalcon
think tank/media complex -- to the British establishment and its
corporate media mouthpieces, the Anglo-American, self-appointed "leaders
of the free world" are racking up demonization of Russia and "Putinism"
to pure incandescence.

And yet a hot war is not about to break out -- before or after the
November 8 US presidential election. So many layers of fear and loathing
in fact veil no more than a bluff.

Let's start with the Russian naval task force in Syria, led by the
officially designated "heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser" Admiral
Kuznetsov, which will be stationed in the eastern Mediterranean at least
until February 2017, supporting operations against all strands of
Salafi-jihadism.

The Admiral Kuznetsov is fully equipped with anti-ship, air defense,
artillery and anti-submarine warfare systems -- and can defend itself
against a vast array of threats, unlike NATO vessels.

Predictably, NATO is spinning with alarm that "all of the Northern
Fleet," along with the Baltic Fleet, is on the way to the Mediterranean.
Wrong; it's only part of the Northern Fleet, and the Baltic Fleet ships
are not going anywhere. The heart of the matter is that when the
capabilities of this Russian naval task force are matched with the
S-300/S-400 missile systems already deployed in Syria, Russia is now de
facto rivaling the firepower of the US Sixth Fleet.

To top it off, as this comprehensive military analysis makes clear,
Russia has "basically made their own no-fly zone over Syria"; and a US
no-fly zone, viscerally promoted by Hillary Clinton, "is now impossible
to achieve." That should be more than enough to put into
perspective the impotence transmuted into outright anger exhibited by
the Pentagon and its neocon/neoliberalcon vassals.Add to it the outright war between the Pentagon and the CIA in the
Syrian war theater, where the Pentagon backs the YPG Kurds, who are not
necessarily in favor of regime change in Damascus, while the CIA backs
further weaponizing of "moderate," as in al-Qaeda-linked and/or
infiltrated, "rebels."

Compounding the trademark Obama administration Three Stooges school of
foreign policy, American threats have flown more liberally than Negan's
skull-crushing bloody baton in the new season of The Walking Dead. Pentagon head Ash Carter, a certified neocon, has threatened
"consequences," as in "potential" strikes against Syrian Arab Army (SAA)
forces to "punish the regime" after the Pentagon itself broke the
Kerry-Lavrov ceasefire.

President Obama took some time off weighing his options. And in the
end, he backed off. So it will be up for the virtually elected --
by the whole US establishment -- Hillary Clinton to make the fateful
decision. She won't be able to go for a no-fly zone -- because Russia is
already doing it. And if she decides to "punish the regime," Moscow
already telegraphed, via Russia's Defense Ministry spokesman
Major-General Igor Konashenkov, there will definitely be "consequences"
for imposing a "shadow" hot war. Sun Tzu doesn't do first-strike. Washington, of course, reserves for
itself a "first-strike" nuclear capability, which Hillary Clinton fully
supports (Donald Trump does not, and for that he's also demonized). If we allow the current hysteria to literally go nuclear, then we
must consider the matter of the S-500 anti-missile system -- which
effectively seals Russia's air space; Moscow won't admit it on the
record because that would unleash a relentless arms race.

A US intel source with close connections to the Masters
of the Universe but at the same time opposed to Cold War 2.0 as
"counter-productive," adds the necessary nuance: "The United States has
lost the arms race, indulging in trillions of dollars of worthless and
endless wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and now is no longer a
global power as it cannot defend itself with its obsolete missiles,
THAAD, Patriot and Aegis Land Based Ballistic Defense System, against
Russian ICBMs, even as the Russians have sealed their airspace. The
Russians may be as much as four generations ahead of the US."

Moreover,
in the deep recesses of shadow war planning, the Pentagon knows, and
the Russian Defense Ministry also knows, that in the event some Dr.
Strangelove launched a nuclear preemptive strike against Russia, the
Russian population would be protected by their defensive missile systems
-- as well as nuclear bomb shelters in major cities. Warnings on
Russian television have not been idle; the population would know where
to go in the -- terrifying -- event of nuclear war breaking out.

Needless to add, the ghastly possibility of US nuclear first-strike
turns all these WWII-style NATO war games in Eastern Europe into a pile
of meaningless propaganda stunts.

So how did Moscow plan for it all? According to the US intel source,
"they took out almost all the military budget from their stated federal
budget, lulling the West into thinking that Russia could not afford a
massive military buildup and there was nothing to fear from Russia as
they were finished as a world power. The [stated] military budget was
next to nothing, so there was nothing to worry about as far as the CIA
was concerned. If Putin showed publicly his gigantic military buildup,
the West could have taken immediate remedial actions as they did in 2014
by crashing the oil price."

The bottom line then would reveal the Pentagon as totally unprepared
for a hot war -- even as it threatens and bluffs Russia now on a daily
basis; "As Brzezinski has pointed out, if this is the case it means the
US has ceased to be a global power. The US may continue to bluff, but
those that ally with them will have nowhere to go if that bluff is
called, as it is being now called in Syria."

The US intel source is adamant that "one of the greatest military
buildups in history has taken place right under the nose of the Russian
Central Bank head Elvira Nabiullina and the Russian Ministry of Finance
while the CIA awaits what they think will be the inevitable Russia
collapse. The CIA will be waiting forever and eternity for Russia to collapse.
This MGB maneuver is sheer genius. And demonstrates that the CIA, which
is so drowned by data inputs that they cannot connect the dots on
anything, must be completely reorganized.

In addition, the entire procurement system of the United States
military must also be reorganized as it cannot ever keep up if new
weapon programs as the F-35 take 20 years to develop and then are found
obsolete before they even enter service.

The Russians have a five-year development program for each new
weapons system and they are far ahead of us in every key area.... If
this analysis is correct, it goes against even the best and most precise
Russian estimates, according to which military potential may be strong,
asymmetrically, but still much inferior to US military might. Well-informed Western analysts know that Moscow never brags about
military buildups -- and has mastered to a fault the element of
surprise. Much more than calling a bluff, it's Moscow's Sun Tzu tactics
that are really rattling loudmouth Washington.

The stock market is turning into a sloppy, ugly mess—and it could get worse

Dow industrials on pace for longest streak of monthly losses in 5 years. Here are some of the reasons behind the slide

It is rough out there.

It is getting dicey out there for Wall Street investors, although stocks eked out a modest rise on Friday.

U.S.
equities have been bouncing around lately. And the trend has been
predominantly lower. Although it hasn’t been the sort of dizzying tumble
for equities that would elicit an instant spike in fear, it has been,
however, the kind of plodding descent that has the Dow Jones Industrial
Average
DJIA, +0.22%
down nearly 300 points since the end of July. In fact, the Dow and the S&P 500 index
SPX, +0.02%
are on the verge of tallying
three straight months of declines, with October shaping up to be the
ugliest monthly fall since January—the month after the Federal Reserve
raised rates for the first time in a decade. (Friday’s jump on better
bank earnings will have to be factored after the close.) But, if
the Dow posts a loss in October it would be the first time the
blue-chip index logged three consecutive monthly declines since the
period ended in September 2011. The S&P 500 notched three
consecutive monthly loses earlier this year, ended February.

On
Friday, stocks ended nearly flat, with only the Dow posting a
significant gain buoyed by a rise in the banking sector’s Goldman Sachs
Group
GS, +1.85%
Friday’s wobbly moves, where
stocks started off sharply higher before fading, has characterized a
market that appears to be increasingly on tenterhooks. Here’s what may
be contributing to the recent spike in Wall Street anxiety levels:

1. October trade

Ryan Detrick, senior market
strategist at LPL Financial, points out that October is inherently a
volatile month for stocks. “October has a reputation as a month you
better buckle your seat belts for a reason. Nearly all the volatility
records seem to take place during this month,” Detrick said in a recent
research note. Read:Will October kill yet another bull market?Detrick points out that 10 of the largest one-day drops were in October, dating back to 1928 (as the following table shows):

2. Ominous charts point to a crash (a la October 1987)

A
number of analysts are pointing to the possibility of a big selloff in
stocks, citing bearish technical patterns. Murray Gunn, technical
analyst at HSBC, in a Wednesday note said investors should look out
below if the S&P 500 closes between 2,116-1,991 and if the Dow
industrials breach the 17,992-17,063 level. The thinking behind that
call is those levels represent recent lows that may trigger buying by
computer-driven traders and other investors. In other words, those
levels then tend to act as so-called support. But slipping below them
can mean a painful dip into darkness.

Other market statisticians, including Carter Braxton Worth
of Cornerstone Macro, have pointed out that although stocks have been
hovering around all-time records, their recent crawl lower is a bad sign
and suggests that equities are gradually breaking down.Here’s a chart of important levels for the S&P 500 put together by MarketWatch’s Tomi Kilgore:

On Thursday, the S&P 500 hit a low of 2,114 before bouncing back, while the Dow’s Thursday low was 17,959, before rebounding somewhat.
Still, Murray said “the possibility of a severe fall in the stock
market is now very high,” and compared recent moves in stocks with those
that preceded the 1987 stock-market crash.

3. Weak corporate earnings

Alcoa Inc.
AA, -1.16%
delivered weak third-quarter
results to unofficially kick off earnings season. S&P Global Market
Intelligence warned that earnings season is turning out to be a story of
tepid growth, down 1.2% for the third quarter. S&P said particular
attention needs to be paid to the consumer-discretionary sector, which
includes brands like Nike Inc.
NKE, -0.79%Ford Motor Co.F, +0.00%
and Staples Inc.SPLS, -1.18%
and is on track to report its
lowest quarterly results since 2012 (as the chart below shows):

Why is this bad? Weak earnings can mean there is not a lot
of fundamental justification to buy stocks, which are considered risky
compared with, say, the U.S. 10-year Treasury note
TMUBMUSD10Y, +0.00%
Better earnings from stocks
mean that investors are getting good value for their buck. Weak or
stagnant earnings suggest that investors are overpaying. And there have
been a raft of market participants pointing to bubbles forming in the market, citing things like price-to-earnings ratios.

Indeed, S&P 500 companies are expected to post their sixth straight quarter of declining earnings,
according to FactSet data. And although it is still early in the
season, several corporations have issued profit and/or sales warnings
over the past few weeks. That all implies that there is still weakness
in the economy, despite a labor market that has been chugging along.
Tepid earnings are a big reason the market is bound to sink, or, at the
very least, can’t go much higher, some industry experts argue.

4. Biotech woes

The
biotech market can be a canary in the coal mine as a measure of
risk-taking. And it is starting to lose steam after a nice run, trading
below both its 50-day and 200-day moving averages, as gauged by the
iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF
IBB, -1.86%
Falling below or trading above a
moving average is usually interpreted as a measure of momentum.Problems in biotech are multiple, but the primary forces
could be centered on a scaling back of general risk appetite, as the
sector is a proxy for bullish bets on U.S. stocks, and as a bet on the
outcome of the U.S. presidential election. Democratic candidate Hillary
Clinton has been critical of biotech companies, which can pressure the
sector if investors believe she’s likely to win the race for the White
House.

The dollar
DXY, +0.55%
has been a headwind for stocks
and its abrupt surges higher on shifting views of a rate increase by the
Federal Reserve have been disruptive to markets of late. A stronger
buck means reduced sales for U.S. multinationals when money is
repatriated into dollars. And a sustained rise could cause companies to
lower their earnings outlooks for future quarters. The dollar has surged
almost 3% so far in October.Meanwhile, the pound’s
steady drop has been a cause for worry because it is unclear how the
U.K.’s economy will fare amid the tumbling currency, despite the
benefits it offers the FTSE 100
UKX, +0.62%
which is comprised
predominantly of multinational companies that profit from exporting
goods. Uncertainty in Europe is a problem that can cause jitters for the
U.S., because it hints at broader global problems.

6. China

Concerns
about China’s economy have resurfaced. Lackluster export data on
Thursday reminded investors of the view that the world’s second-largest
economy is petering. In August 2015, it was China’s stock-market woes
and its sluggish economy that sent global markets into a tailspin.

7. U.S. presidential election

Like the market, Trump has been on a losing streak.

Republican candidate Donald Trump’s recent debacles have
begun to lead some strategists to believe that a victory for Clinton
isn't just assured, but that Democrats might see sufficient gains during
the November elections to gain control of the House. That is not viewed
as a categorical good thing for the market—financials
KBE, +0.48%XLF, +0.47%
and the aforementioned biotech sector have been wobbly

To
be sure, there is plenty of time to right the stock-market ship.
Earnings could surprise to the upside and calm may set in after the
election, pushing the S&P 500 and the Dow to fresh records, but
right now it is looking a bit iffy.

Following
the president of the Russian Federation’s decree on suspending Russia’s
compliance with agreements with the US on the disposal of weapons-grade
plutonium and the submission of the corresponding bill to the State
Duma, disputes have begun in the media on whether this is connected to
the rupture of the Syria deal. The second stumbling block is a question:
Why is Russia, having known that the US has not fulfilled its part of
the deal, only reacted now after a few years?

Some
nuclear experts argue that the deal was objectively beneficial for
Russia. Maybe. I’m not an expert in this sphere and it’s difficult for
me to say how objective they are. Moreover, that which is beneficial
from the standpoint of the nuclear industry might be disadvantageous
from the point of view of security.

In
principle, I think that there were no particular security problems.
Russia has a sufficient nuclear arsenal capable of inflicting a deadly
blow on the United States. Washington recognizes this as well. There was
also more than enough material for the production of new warheads. In
the event of full-scale nuclear strike exchanges, the production of
another batch of weapons would already be redundant and, indeed,
physically impossible. The real problem would be physically preserving
the remains of civilization at least at the level of the stone age.

As
for the Syria, this is not the first time, and not only in Syria, that
the US concludes agreements only to disrupt their fulfillment and then
conclude them again. The form of the Russian reaction is clearly not
comparable to Washington’s public rejection of cooperation which, in
fact, it has yet to do.

I
think that in order to understand the scale of this incident, it is
necessary to pay attention to the fact that Putin has not simply taken
Russia out of a contract. He has announced the possibility of returning
to it, but he has furnished certain conditions.

Let’s look at these conditions:

(1) the US must lift all sanctions against Russia; (2) compensation should be paid not only for the losses from
American sanctions, but also for the losses incurred by Russian
counter-sanctions; (3) the Magnitsky Act should be repealed; (4) the US’ military presence in Eastern Europe should be sharply reduced; and (5) the US should abandon its policy of confrontation with Moscow.
Only one word fits in determining the essence of Putin’s demands: “ultimatum.”

As
far as a I remember, the last time that Washington was given an
ultimatum was by the United Kingdom over the Trent vessel incident. And
that was in 1861 during the American Civil War. Even then, in extremely
difficult conditions, America agreed to partially meet British demands.

It
should be noted that the British demands in 1861 did not contain
anything humiliating for the US. The captain of a US Navy ship had
indeed broken international law, arrested people on a neutral (British)
ship, and thereby encroached upon the sovereignty of the UK, nearly
provoking a war. Then America disavowed the actions of its captain and
freed the prisoners, albeit refusing to apologize.

But Putin
is not demanding any apologies or the release of a few prisoners, but
for all of American policy to be changed, and still more for Russia to
be compensated for losses due to the US’ sanctions. This is an
unmeetable, humiliating demand. This demand essentially means complete
and unconditional surrender in the hybrid war which Washington does not
consider to be irreversibly lost. And there’s still all those
indemnities payments and reparations.

Something
similar was demanded from the US by the British Crown before the end of
the war for independence, when the Americans were still King George
III’s rebellious subjects. For the last 100 years no one has even
imagined talking with Washington in such a tone.

And
so, the first conclusion is: Putin has deliberately and demonstratively
humiliated the US. He has shown that it is possible to talk tough to
the US, even tougher than the US itself has gotten used to talking down
to the rest of the world.

How
was this done? What did Putin actually react to? Did he actually think
that the US would fulfill the Kerry-Lavrov deal and is now upset over
what happened? Russia also knew that Washington has not been observing
the plutonium deal for years, but Moscow has extracted serious profit
from this for its nuclear industry by nearly becoming a global monopoly
and is clearly not perturbed by the US’ technological backwardness
preventing them from disposing of weapons-grade plutonium as stipulated
in the agreement.

Russia’s tough and almost immediate reaction followed the statements of the US
Secretary of State’s spokesperson to the effect that Russia will have
to start sending its troops home from Syria in body bags, is going to
start losing planes, and that terrorist attacks will begin to plague
Russian cities.

In
addition, the State Department’s statement was immediately followed by
the Pentagon's announcement that it is ready to launch a preventative
nuclear strike on Russia. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs also
reported that Moscow knows about the US’ intention to launch an air war
against Syrian government forces, which also means against the Russian
contingent legally stationed in Syria.

What else formed the background for Putin’s ultimatum?: The
exercises from six months ago involving air and missile defense and
strategic missile systems which practiced repelling a nuclear attack on
Russia and then launching a responsive counter strike. Add to this the
other day's emergency exercises involving up to 40 million Russian
citizens that inspected the readiness of infrastructure and civil
defense structures for a nuclear war and provided additional information
to citizens on the plan of action in the cause of “X hour.”

If
we take all of this together, then we can see that the US has long
since informally frightened Russia with a nuclear conflict, and Moscow
has regularly hinted that it is ready for such a turn of events and is
not going to back down.

However,
given the end of Obama’s rule and lacking absolute confidence in a
Hillary Clinton victory in presidential elections, the Washington hawks
have decided to raise their bets once again. And now things have reached
an extremely dangerous limit in which conflict begins to reach the
stage of developing independently. At this stage, nuclear Armageddon
could begin over any kind of incident, including due to the incompetence
of some senior Pentagon officials or White House administrators.

At
this precise moment, Moscow has seized the initiative and upped the
ante, but by moving the confrontation onto another plane. Unlike
America, Russia is not threatening war. It is simply demonstrating its
capability of giving a harsh political and economic response which can,
in the event of further inappropriate behavior by the US, realize just
the opposite of Obama’s dream: tearing apart Washington’s economy and
financial system.

In
addition, with these actions, Russia has seriously undermined the
international prestige of the US by showing the whole world that America
can be beaten with its own weapons. The boomerang has come back. Given
such dynamics and turn of events, we might see hundreds of
representatives of the American elite at the dock in the Hague not only
in our lifetime, but even before the next American president serves
their first four-year term in the White House.

The
US has been given a choice. Either it will carry through with its
threats and start a nuclear war, or it will accept the fact that the
world is no longer unipolar, and begin to integrate into the new format.

We don’t know what choice Washington will make. The
American political establishment has a sufficient number of
ideologically-blinded, incompetent figures who are ready to burn up in a
nuclear fire with the rest of a humanity rather than recognize the end
of US world hegemony, which has turned out to be short-lived, senseless,
and criminal. But they have to make a choice, because the
longer that Washington pretends that nothing has happened, the greater
the number of its vassals (who are called their allies, but have long
since been bogged down in dependency) will openly and explicitly ignore
American ambitions and cross over to the other side of the new
perspectives of global power arrangement.

In
the end, the US could be faced with the status of one of the centers of
the multipolar world no longer being available for it. Not only
Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans, but also Europeans will gladly
take revenge against the former hegemon for their former humiliation.
And they are not so humane and peace-loving as Russia.

Finally,
Putin’s ultimatum is a response to all of those who were outraged that
Russian tanks didn’t take Kiev, Lvov, Warsaw, and Paris in 2014 and
pondered over what Putin’s plan could possibly be.

I
can only repeat what I wrote back then. If you are going to confront
the global hegemon, then you have to be sure that you will be capable of
responding to any of its actions. The economy, army, society, and state
and administrative structures should all be ready. If everything is not
fully ready, then one needs to buy time and build muscle.

Now
things are ready and the cards have been put on the table. Let us see
what the US will respond with. But the geopolitical reality will never
be the same. The world has already changed. The US has had the gauntlet
publicly thrown down before it and they have not dared to pick it up
right away.

Bring Back The Cold War — Paul Craig Roberts
September 30 , 2016 | Original Here | If you wish to receive his newsletter via email go to Original and sign up at bottom.

Bring Back The Cold War

Paul Craig Roberts

Pundits have declared a “New Cold War.” If only! The Cold War was a
time when leaders focused on reducing tensions between nuclear powers.
What we have today is much more dangerous: Washington’s reckless and
irresponsible aggression toward the other major nuclear powers, Russia
and China.

During my lifetime American presidents worked to defuse tensions with
Russia. President John F. Kennedy worked with Khrushchev to defuse the
Cuban Missile Crisis. President Richard Nixon negotiated SALT I and the
anti-ballistic missile treaty, and Nixon opened to Communist China.
President Carter negotiated SALT II. Reagan worked with Soviet leader
Gorbachev and ended the Cold War. The Berlin Wall came down. Gorbachev
was promised that in exchange for the Soviet Union’s agreement to the
reunification of Germany, NATO would not move one inch to the East.

Peace was at hand. And then the neoconservatives, rehabilitated by
the Israeli influence in the American press, went to work to destroy the
peace that Reagan and Gorbachev had achieved. It was a short-lasting
peace. Peace is costly to the profits of the military/security complex.
Washington’s gigantic military and security interests are far more
powerful than the peace lobby.

Since the advent of the criminal Clinton regime, every American
president has worked overtime to raise tensions with Russia and China.

China is confronted with the crazed and criminal Obama regime’s
declaration of the “pivot to Asia” and the prospect of the US Navy
controlling the sea lanes that provision China. Russia is even more dangerously threatened with US nuclear missile
bases on her border and with US and NATO military bases stretching from
the Baltics to the Black Sea.

Russia is also threatened with endless provocations and with
demonization that is clearly intended to prepare Western peoples for war
against “the Russian threat.” Extreme and hostile words stream from
the mouth of the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, who
has called the president of Russia “the new Hitler” and threatened
Russia with military force. Insouciant Americans are capable of electing
this warmonger who would bring Armageddon upon the earth.

Yesterday, Israel’s voice in the US, the , added to
Hillary’s demonization of the most responsible leader in the world with
this editorial: “Vladimir Putin’s Outlaw State.” This irresponsible and
propagandistic editorial, no doubt written by the neoconservatives,
blames all the troubles in Ukraine and Syria on Putin. The NYT
presstitutes know that they have no case, so they drag in the
US-orchestrated false report on MH-17 recently released by Washington’s
Netherlands vassal.

This report is so absurd as to cast doubt on whether intelligence
exists anywhere in the Western world. Russia and the now independent
Russian provinces that have separated from Ukraine have no interest
whatsoever in shooting down a Malaysian airliner. But despite this
fact, Russia, according to the orchesrated report, sent a surface-to-air
missile, useful only at high altitude, an altitude far higher than the
Ukrainian planes fly that are attacking Russians in the separated
republics, to the “rebels” so that the “rebels” could shoot down a
Malaysian airliner. Then the missile system was sent back to Russia.

How insouciant does a person have to be to believe this propaganda from the New York Times?

Does the New York Times write this nonsense because it is bankrupt and lives on CIA subsidies?

It is obvious that the Malaysian airliner was destroyed for the
purpose of blaming Russia so that Washington could force Europe to
cooperate in applying illegal sanctions on Russia in an attempt to
destabilize Russia, a country that placed itself in the way of
Washington’s determination to destabilize Syria and Iran.

In a recent speech, the mindless cipher, who in his role as US
Secretary of Defense serves as a front man for the armaments industry,
declared the one trillion dollars (1,000 billion dollars or 1,000,000
million dollars, that is, one million dollars one million times) that
Washington is going to spend of Americans’ money for nuclear force
renewal is so we can “get up in the morning to go to school, to go to
work, to live our lives, to dream our dreams and to give our children a
better future.”

Do you get the picture? Or are you an insouciant American?
Washington’s buildup is only so that we can get up in the morning and go
to school and work, but Russia’s buildup in response to Washington’s
buildup upsets “strategic stability.”

What the Pentagon chief means is that Russia is supposed to sit there
and let Washington gain the upper hand so Washington can maintain
“strategic stability” by dictating to Russia. By not letting Washington
prevail, Russia is upsetting “strategic stability.”

US Secretary of State John Kerry, who has been broken and tamed by
the neoconservatives, recently displayed the same point of view with his
“ultimatum” to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. In effect,
Kerry told Lavrov that Russia must stop helping Syria resist the
jihadist forces and allow the US-supported ISIS to regain the initiative
and reduce Syria to the chaos in which Washington left Libya and Iraq.
Otherwise, Kerry said that the agreement to cooperate is off.

There can be no cooperation between the US and Russia over Syria,
because the two government’s goals are entirely different. Russia wants
to defeat ISIS, and the US wants to use ISIS to overthrow Assad. This
should be clear to the Russians. Yet they still enter into “agreements”
that Washington has no intention of keeping. Washington breaks the
agreements and blames Russia, thus creating more opportunities to paint
Russia as untrustworthy. Without Russia’s cooperation in setting
themselves up for blame, Russia’s portrait would not be so black.

The NYT answers: Russia is “massacring Aleppo’s civilians as part of a
calculated strategy . . . designed to pressure [moderates] to ally
themselves with extremists,” thereby discrediting the forces that
Washington has sent to overthrow Syria and to reduce the country to
chaos.

When America’s Newspaper of Record is nothing but a propaganda ministry, what is America?

Pundits keep explaining that Washington’s 15 year old wars in the
Middle East are about controlling the routing of energy pipelines.
Little doubt this is a factor as it brings on board powerful American
energy and financial interests. But this is not the motive for the
wars. Washington, or the neoconservatives who control the US
government, intend to destabilize the Russian Federation, the former
Soviet Central Asian countries, and China’s Muslim province by adding
Syria and then Iran to the chaos that Washington has created in Iraq and
Libya. If Washington succeeds in destroying Syria as it succeeded in
destroying Libya and Iraq, Iran becomes the last buffer for Russia. If
Washington then knocks off Iran, Russia is set up for destabilization by
jihadists operating in Muslim regions of the Russian Federation.

This is clear as day. Putin understands this. But Russia, which
existed under Washington’s domination during the Yeltsin years, has been
left threatened by Washington’s Fifth Columns in Russia. There are a
large number of foreign-financed NGOs in Russia that Putin finally
realized were Washington’s agents. These Washington operatives have
been made to register as foreign-financed, but they are still
functioning.

Russia is also betrayed by a section of its elite who are allied
economically, politically, and emotionally with Washington. I have
termed these Russians “America Worshipers.” Their over-riding cause is
to have Russia integrated with the West, which means to be a vassal of
Washington.

This “academic report” is a direct assault on the Russian/Chinese
alliance. It makes one wonder whether the report was funded by the CIA.
The Russian media fall for the “common interest” propaganda, because
they desire to be included in the West. Like Russian academics, the
Russian media know English, not Chinese. Russia’s history since Peter
the Great is with the West. So that is where they want to be. However,
these America Worshiping Russians cannot understand that to be part of
the West means being Washington’s vassal, or if they do understand the
price, they are content with a vassal’s status like Germany, Great
Britain, France, and the rest of the European puppet states.

To be a vassal is not an unusual choice in history. For example,
many peoples chose to be Rome’s vassals, so those elements in Russia who
desire to be Washington’s vassal have precedents for their decision.

To reduce Russia’s status to Washington’s vassal, we have Russian-US
cooperation between the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and
International Relations and the US-based International Institute for
Strategic Studies. These two co-conspirators against Russian sovereignty
are working to destroy Russia’s strategic alliance with China and to
create a US-Russian Pacific Alliance in its place. One of the benefits,
the joint report declares, is “maintaining freedom of navigation and
maritime security.”

“Freedom of navigation” is Washington’s term for controlling the sea
lanes that supply China. So now we have a Russian institute supporting
Washington’s plans to cut off resource flow into China. This idiocy on
the part of the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and
International Relations is unlikely to reassure China about its alliance
with Russia. If the alliance is broken, Washington can more easily
deal with the two constraints on its unilateralism.

Additionally, the joint report says that Moscow could cooperate with
Washington in confidence-building measures to resolve territorial
disputes in the Asia-Pacific region. What this means is that Russia
should help Washington pressure China to give up its territorial claims.

One cannot but wonder if the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy
and International Relations is a CIA front. If it is not, the CIA is
getting a free ride.

The foreign policy of the United States rests entirely on
propagandistic lies. The presstitute media, a Ministry of Propaganda,
establishes an orchestrated reality by treating lies as fact. News
organizations around the world, accustomed as they are to following
Washington’s lead, echo the lies as if they are facts.

Russia’s very capable spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, understands that
Washington uses the Western media to control explanations by shaping
public opinion. She terms it a “reality show.” However, Zakharova
thinks the problem is that Washington misuses “international relations
and international platforms for addressing internal issues.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45564.htm
By this she means that Obama’s foreign policy failures have made him
hysterical and impudent as he strives to leave a legacy, and that
American/Russian relations are poisoned by the US presidential campaign
that is painting Trump as a “Putin stooge” for not seeing the point of
conflict with Russia.

The US presstitutes are disreputable. This morning NPR presented us
with a report on Chinese censorship of the media as if this was
something that never happens in the US. Yet NPR not only censors the
news, but uses disinformation as a weapon in behalf of Washington and
Israel’s agendas. Anyone who depends on NPR is presented a very
controlled picture of the world. And do not forget German newspaper
editor Udo Ulfkotte, who admits he planted stories for the CIA in the
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitnung and says that there is no significant
European journalist who doesn’t do the same thing. https://www.amazon.com/Journalists-Hire-How-Buys-News/dp/1944505474/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1475243325&sr=1-1&keywords=udo+ulfkotte

The situation is far more serious than Zakharova realizes. Russians
seem unable to get their minds around the fact that the neoconservatives
are serious about imposing Washington’s hegemony on the rest of the
world. The neoconservative doctrine declares that it is the principal
goal of US foreign policy to prevent the rise of any country that would
have sufficient power to serve as a check on American unilateralism.
This neoconservative doctrine puts Russia and China in Washington’s
cross hairs. If the Russian and Chinese governments do not yet
understand this, they are not long for this world.

The neoconservative doctrine fits perfectly with the material
interests of the US military/security complex. The US armaments and spy
industries have had 70 years to entrench themselves with a huge claim
on the US budget. This politically powerful interest group has no
intention of letting go of its hold on US resources.

As long ago as 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his last
public address to the American people warned that the Cold War
confronted Americans with a new internal danger as large as the external
Soviet threat:

“Our military organization today bears little relation to that known
by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of
World War II or Korea.

“Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no
armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and
as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk
emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to
create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to
this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the
defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than
the net income of all United States corporations.

“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large
arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence —
economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State
house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the
imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend
its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all
involved; so is the very structure of our society.

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.

“We must never let the weight of this combination endanger
our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for
granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper
meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with
our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper
together.”

President Eisenhower’s warning that our liberties were equally at
stake from the military/security complex as from the Soviet Threat did
not last 24 hours. The military/security complex buried Eisenhower’s
warning with extraordinary hype of the Soviet Threat.

In truth, there was no Soviet threat. Stalin had buffered Russia from
the West with his control of Eastern Europe, just as Washington
controlled Western Europe. Stalin had eliminated Trotsky and his
supporters who stood for world revolution. Stalin declared “socialism
in one country.”

Stalin terminated international communism. But the American
military/security complex had much money to gain from the American
taxpayers in order to “protect America from International Communism.”
So the fact that there was no effort on the part of the Soviet Union to
subvert the world was ignored. Instead, every national liberation
movement was declared by the US military/industrial complex to be a
“falling domino” of the Communist takeover of the world.

Ho Chi Minh begged Washington for help against the French
colonialists in Vietnam. Washington told him to go to hell. It was
Washington that sent Ho Cho Minh to seek communist support.

The long Vietnam war went on for years. It enriched the
military/security complex and officers’ pensions. But it was otherwise
entirely pointless. There were no dominoes to fall. Vietnam won the
war but is open to American influence and commerce.

Because of the military/security complex more than 50,000 Americans
died in the war and many thousands more suffered physical and
psychological wounds. Millions of Vietnamese suffered death, maiming,
birth defects and illnesses associated with Washington’s use of Agent
Orange.

The entire war was totally pointless. It achieved nothing but destruction of innocents.This is Washington’s preferred way. The corrupt capitalism that rules
in America has no interest in life, only in profit. Profit is all that
counts. If entire countries are destroyed and left in ruins, all the
better for American armaments industries.

Yes, please, a new Cold War. We need one desperately, a conflict
responsibly managed in place of the reckless, insane drive for world
hegemony emanating from the crazed, evil criminals in Washington who are
driving the world to Armageddon.

About Me

B.S. in Physics, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1960 Ph.D. in Physics, Brown University, 1966. Fellow, American Physical
Society. Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Fellow, American Ceramic Society. Member, Geological Society of America, Research Physicist at Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), Washington, DC,
1967-2001. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México, 1997. Invited Professor of Research at Universités
de Paris-6 & 7, Lyon-1, et St-Etienne (France) and Tokyo Institute
of Technology, 2000-2004. Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and
Engineering, University of Arizona, 2004-2005. Consultancy: impactGlass
research international, 2005-present.
Winner, one national and two international research awards and honored
by Brown University with a "Distinguished Graduate School Alumnus
Award." Author, 198 papers in peer-reviewed journals and books, Principal Author of 114 of these.